We already know the sort of scenarios it can produce. In some areas of China, where traditional beliefs are very strong, and Chinese parents were (or are, not sure if it’s still in effect) strongly discouraged by the state from having more than two children, many parents responded by aborting/killing female children, because male children is what every Chinese parent wants. Result:those areas have a huge imbalance of male vs. female children… a lot more male children, of course. Which means a lot of Chinese males in those areas don’t have wives. In some areas, only 29 percent of men have the money needed to get a woman to marry them. Sexbots, porn and such are being touted as possible solutions. Funny, no one mentioned prostitutes. I would expect MASSIVE increases in prostitution in China with 44 million surplus men around.
It may be a bit of a stretch to regulate birth through the commerce clause but weirder things have happened. I am not sure that Roe v. Wade prohibited attaching conditions to receiving welfare. I don’t think Roe v Wade even came close to saying the right to privacy is inviolate. We can in fact ban abortions for women who are in their third trimester because the state interest is more important at that point than a woman’s privacy right.
I’m not saying any of this is realistic or even desirable. I was just larking off of something upthread but I don’t see why it would be impossible.
That just extends Griswold to single people. You can still overcome these things with a compelling state interest.
Once again, we are talking about irreversible sterilization that was being unevenly applied. So you had a basic right and an equal protection issue.
You had both. I don’t know if they had a majority if they didn’t have the equal protection issue (and assuming there was not cruel and unusual punishment issue)
Well, based on Gattaca, you are likely to have the genetic testing done before impregnation.
The limit was not enforced in rural areas. In rural areas, if your first child was a girl, she was a freebie.
And now that they have lifted the ban, the birth rate has not increased significantly because it has become so expensive to raise a child that you practically need 4 grandparents and 2 parents of modest means to raise one child. Their poor are self regulating population growth in a way that our poor are not.
This would be interesting if true. It doesn’t appear to be anywhere near true.
Unfortunately, the latest data I could find is from 2008.
That paper does indicates that terminations have prevented an increase in Down’s births that would otherwise have occurred as mothers are giving birth later. But preventing an increase is not the same as “eliminating”.
Do you have any more recent numbers that you can cite?
I’d heard a 90% figure before, and this is what Politifact says about it:
A number of scientific studies have shown an abortion rate from 80 percent to 90 percent – close to what Santorum said – but all have been localized. Since there’s evidence that the decision to abort can vary by region, we think it’s an overstatement for Santorum to say that after prenatal diagnosis, “90 percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted.” There are no standardized, national numbers, so his use of the term “in America” is problematic. On balance, we rate his statement Half True.
IOW, you took a memory probably based on a statement by Rick Santorum of all people and mutated it to a wholly fictional statement that has no basis in fact whatsoever. Nice work.
Actually, I’d heard it from many sources, not Santorum, and the sources were accurate as far as they went.
Well, that certainly settles that!
The appropriate evaluation of that remark would be neither “True” nor “Half True” nor “Pants On Fire,” but “So What?”
If parents were aborting homosexual children, would that be a “so what?”
Kids, can you say “false equivalence”?
I knew you couldn’t! 
Did any of them go farther than “I heard Santorum say something like that”? Because a hundred people, all of whom got the information from the same original source, is worth nothing more than the original source.
How is it false equivalence? Are Downs kids worth less than gay kids?
Downs is a genetic defect; gayness isn’t.
Downs children require extra care and expense; gay kids don’t.
It isn’t about “value of life.” It’s more about quality of life.
Would you compel people to give birth to children with spina bifida or anencephaly, because “every kid is equally valuable?”
Eugenic abortion should be a matter of very last resort; you’re trying to make it look like a trivial choice, like aborting until you get a kid with blond hair.
Need you ask?
The correct answer is that it doesn’t matter why a woman wants to abort. If women decide they don’t want gay kids or Downs kids, or girls, that’s their choice.
Wow, you’re pro-choice now?
Always was, at least in the first trimester…
So after the 1st trimester, it’s not her choice- even if the doctor’s don’t catch any medical defects until then?
No, then the state has a role in regulating the circumstances. Which is in line with how the court ruled in Roe. Only the first trimester is completely free of state regulation.
after that, it depends. In most states, if they catch Downs in the third trimester, it’s still illegal, as it should be.
In regards to Democrats being in trouble, has anyone noticed that the Republicans seem to be learning from their mistakes? Two year budget deal passed the House overwhelmingly.
See, I’m occasionally right.